By Thornton Crowe
A week ago today five men left for work and their families saw them come home that night as they had done for many years. Thursday night that pattern changed forever.
A very good civil case could be laid out for the Dallas Police Victim’s families to sue the organization, Black Lives Matter, for their loss.
While money never brings the fallen heroes of the Dallas massacre back, one thing it does provoke is a burning question about the events. Had Black Lives Matter not staged several protests over two very flawed individuals whose backgrounds were steeped in criminality, would those officers or the sniper be in downtown Dallas last Thursday night? Chances are, probably not.
We can all agree this BLM movement is formed on falsity and lies. In every case they’ve rallied for, the victims were far from law abiding citizens whom contributed positive influences in their neighborhoods. In fact, Sterling was trying to shoot officers and Castile was a robbery suspect. These are not men who are honorable. Hardly. They were derelicts of society with ‘Rap sheets’ a mile long.
Therefore, given the misinformation given to people over forums like Facebook and Twitter, would it not stand to reason they were the perpetrators, putting the police in the wrong place at the wrong time?
This shows not only negligence, but also accessory. Criminal charges would be hard to prove as the circumstantial evidence is not black and white as with most criminal cases; however, civilly, are they not culpable for placing the police in harm’s way for no “good” reason. I accentuate good because as stated above, the battle cry was not for a real injustice done to others. It was a way to stir up the mass upset over two incidents they fraudulently (falsely) framed to their followers.
Had this been say for a drive-by killing a child or an innocent college freshman football star who was wrongfully harassed by the police, it would be one thing; but the men in question were criminals — actual documented ex-cons.
Sure, some of my readers will scoff and say there’s no way, but people have been held accountable before for the actions of others due to their influence. Charles Manson didn’t shoot or stab the LaBianco’s or Sharon Tate. In fact, like BLM, he wasn’t even present during the actual murders, yet we’re fine with him living out his natural life in San Quintin. So Why wouldn’t DeRay McKesson be as culpable as Manson? His hate speech against whites and police officers is legendary. Just like Charlie’s hate speech about whites and police incited Texas Watson, Leslie Van Houten, Patricia Krenwinkel, Steve Slim Grogan and Susan Atkins to kill.
As Charlie found out, being a leader does have its liability so what makes DeRay McKesson any different? For one, a person could argue he didn’t have direct influence over Johnson like Manson did with his ‘girls’ but his influence was de facto as the sniper said to Police Chief Brown before dying, he was mad at BLM. Furthermore, many BLM supporters cheered on social media upon learning of the police deaths. Isn’t this proof for some culpability even if only at a civil level?
At the very least, some enterprising attorney could find a way to hold the top echelons of Black Lives Matters accountable for their complicity and instigation that led to five men dying long before their time as they protected the very march that incited the violence. I’m sure it won’t take long for some eager lawyer to find a way and hopefully, that will be sooner than later.
How say you?